Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2017 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (10) TMI 40 - HC - CustomsAdvance Authorisation scheme - petitioner applied for issuance of an advance authorisation for duty free import of goods into India against supplies to be made to the purchasers - the petitioner was required to export a prescribed quantity of the said products for validly redeeming the Licence - It is the specific case of the petitioner that this export criteria was met by supplying the requisite goods to the purchasers against the Order, copy of which is at Annexure “A”. However, due to an inadvertent error, while having issued all the other necessary supporting documents, the petitioner omitted to file the Bills of Export corresponding to the said supplies at that relevant point of time - the petitioner made an application, invited the said advance authorisation and which is conditional. Held that: - the petitioner seeks to term the lapse on its part as procedural lapse of generating Bill of Export and as per Policy Relaxation Committee what is demanded is proof of export obligation being fulfilled. This is a clear case where on one hand the petitioner accepts its lapse but terms it as procedural and on the other hand despite this lapse there is adequate proof of fulfilment of export obligation available on record. The petitioner was not being denied the benefit or relief only on the ground that they have failed to forward the Bill of Export. They have been specifically informed that the request for redemption of the advance authorisation cannot be granted because there is no proof of fulfilment of the export obligation - the petitioner having duly supplied the copies of the ARE-1 forms, it is only a further technical objection, of the said form not mentioning the advance authorisation number in the initial copies of the same but supplied later on, could have been condoned. It is not as if ARE-1s have not been filed. It is not as if ARE-1s have not been filed. It is not as if there is a doubt about the copy of ARE-1s or the authenticity or genuineness thereof. It is not anybody's case that there are no ARE-1 forms on record. Therefore, these forms were available. Therefore, the stand that there is no proof of export obligation being discharged, could not have been maintained once the petitioner was told to approach the Policy Relaxation Committee and it was empowered to relax any of the technical requirements or procedural matters. Equally, it was empowered to clarify in the facts of this case at least that the documents forwarded by the petitioner can be accepted as proof of export. Once we have held on facts that the requirement is duly fulfilled, then, we do not think that it is necessary to advert to the provisions of the SEZ Rules and particularly Rule 30 thereof. All the more when supplying goods from the domestic tariff area to SEZ is taken as equivalent to an export of goods physically from this country to abroad. Once such an act of the petitioner is taken to be an export, entitling them to the benefits of the advance authorisation and the scheme in respect thereof, then, all the conditions stipulated in that authorisation ought to be taken as fulfilled. Therefore, the Policy Relaxation Committee, as an afterthought, could not have directed the petitioner to get the case regularised as per provisions of the Handbook of Procedures 2009-2014, VolI or the SEZ Rules. We do not think that the petitioner was required to be visited with any adverse consequences, including issuance of Show Cause Notice - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
|